queue_workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the asynchronous nature (returns prompt_id, later retrieval) and mentions optional overrides, providing essential context. It does not cover error handling or validation, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes the return value and next step. No unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (nested overrides, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential flow: queue and retrieve. It could add more context about validation, errors, or how overrides are applied, but it is largely complete for typical usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has only 50% coverage (name and checkpoint have descriptions). The description compensates by listing many overrides (prompt, seed, steps, guidance, sampler, dims, loras), adding meaning beyond the bare types. However, it omits cfg, negative, scheduler, and checkpoint, and uses 'dims' instead of width/height, so it is not fully exhaustive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Queue' with the resource 'ComfyUI workflow', clearly stating the tool's function. It also mentions the return value (prompt_id) and the follow-up tool (wait_for_image), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that also interact with workflows.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: queue a workflow, then call wait_for_image to retrieve the result. It implies the usage pattern but does not explicitly spell out when to use this versus alternatives like queue_batch or run_comfyscript. Exclusions are not stated, so it doesn't earn a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.